4 ms·

MS + Google (via only recently more finely-grained Android permissions) It amazes me at the arrogance in assuming users are idiots, so it's not worth engineeri

by ethbro 9y ago

MS + Google (via only recently more finely-grained Android permissions) It amazes me at the arrogance in assuming users are idiots, so it's not worth engineering features for them. "Warning: This installer is attempting to replace core Windows files. Do you want to allow it to do this?" isn't hard but gives substantially more useful information than "Do you want to allow this installer to do stuff?" (Current UAC)

maxxxxx 9y ago
"Warning: This installer is attempting to replace core Windows files. Do you want to allow it to do this?" This better but in reality most users will still have no clue what it means.
- komali2 9y ago
  And the software can just put in the installer "click 'Yes' on any windows messages to install."
  - stouset 9y ago
    They don't even need to do this. Users will literally just click "Yes" to anything obstructing their path forward. http://i.imgur.com/H0uVqFe.jpg http://i.imgur.com/H0uVqFe.jpg
    - ethbro 9y ago
      I'm going to ask for a citation on that. Where is proof that average users will ignore reasonably worded security messages? Because as far as I can remember (Windows back to 95, MacOS back to the 6100), we (ie computer science professionals) have never done what I would even call an "acceptable" job at attempting this. And the argument, for 20+ years now, has always been "Har har, users are too dumb to read. We'll just abstract all those decisions away from them." Stupid dialogs and lazy UX begat stupid users, not the other way around. (E.g., for starters: https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/756/what-are-some-alternatives-to-the-phrase-are-you-sure-you-want-to-xyz-in-confi https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/756/what-are-some-alt... )
      - maxxxxx 9y ago
        How can a normal user make a judgement whether something is OK or not?
      - komali2 9y ago
        I mean, I feel like a big difference between me and my grandma is that I have an instinct for quickly getting to the "meat and potatoes" of whatever I'm doing on the computer. I do a google search and click within 5 seconds the right link, even if the first couple are ads/irrelevant. When installing a program, I get through everything quickly, without wasting mental energy on the useless TOS and etc. Whereas my grandma will see a TOS and think "oh my goodness, a contract! Do I need to sign this? What, should I read this?" Because she doesn't see many TOSs and doesn't get that they're not a legal document or whatever, and any actually interesting information is buried deep within swathes of legalize. She also doesn't have access to reddit/HN or whatever to quickly warn her if the TOS changes/contains heinous shit. Anyway, I feel like this is why google and firefox buried their "untrusted website - go to it anyway" button in some clickies that even I have a hard time finding, to force people to actually consider the decision.

by ethbro 9y ago

maxxxxx 9y ago

"Warning: This installer is attempting to replace core Windows files. Do you want to allow it to do this?" This better but in reality most users will still have no clue what it means.

komali2 9y ago
And the software can just put in the installer "click 'Yes' on any windows messages to install."
- stouset 9y ago
  They don't even need to do this. Users will literally just click "Yes" to anything obstructing their path forward. http://i.imgur.com/H0uVqFe.jpg http://i.imgur.com/H0uVqFe.jpg
  - ethbro 9y ago
    I'm going to ask for a citation on that. Where is proof that average users will ignore reasonably worded security messages? Because as far as I can remember (Windows back to 95, MacOS back to the 6100), we (ie computer science professionals) have never done what I would even call an "acceptable" job at attempting this. And the argument, for 20+ years now, has always been "Har har, users are too dumb to read. We'll just abstract all those decisions away from them." Stupid dialogs and lazy UX begat stupid users, not the other way around. (E.g., for starters: https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/756/what-are-some-alternatives-to-the-phrase-are-you-sure-you-want-to-xyz-in-confi https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/756/what-are-some-alt... )
    - maxxxxx 9y ago
      How can a normal user make a judgement whether something is OK or not?
    - komali2 9y ago
      I mean, I feel like a big difference between me and my grandma is that I have an instinct for quickly getting to the "meat and potatoes" of whatever I'm doing on the computer. I do a google search and click within 5 seconds the right link, even if the first couple are ads/irrelevant. When installing a program, I get through everything quickly, without wasting mental energy on the useless TOS and etc. Whereas my grandma will see a TOS and think "oh my goodness, a contract! Do I need to sign this? What, should I read this?" Because she doesn't see many TOSs and doesn't get that they're not a legal document or whatever, and any actually interesting information is buried deep within swathes of legalize. She also doesn't have access to reddit/HN or whatever to quickly warn her if the TOS changes/contains heinous shit. Anyway, I feel like this is why google and firefox buried their "untrusted website - go to it anyway" button in some clickies that even I have a hard time finding, to force people to actually consider the decision.